A Twitter RPG so “lazy,” it steals original artwork (Updated)

Imagine firing up a new game only to find that your original photographs or artwork were being used as part of the game’s plot line without your knowledge—and without even a proper citation. This is exactly what happened to several artists who posted their creations and designs online, only to have them snagged for use in an Internet-based, Twitter-fueled RPG called Tweeria.

Tweeria brands itself the “lazy Twitter RPG,” and it certainly lives up to that tagline. It requires little to no interaction other than posting to your own Twitter feed and conversing with other users on the social network. Every time you tweet, your “alter ego” in the game embarks on quests, slays monsters, and picks up items, just as you might do in a normal MMORPG. Tweeria currently has 14,000 registered users and receives about 18,000 visits a day.The game includes all of the basic elements of a fantasy role-playing game: mages, warriors, player-versus-player battles, achievement points, and mastery of skills—including, perhaps, a little digital pickpocketing.

Tweeria is, for the most part, a fresh and dynamic way to interact with a social network made even more attractive by the fact that it doesn't needlessly spam your Twitter followers. Where Tweeria comes up short, however, is in the fact that a majority of the art associated with the game appears to be lifted from other sources on the Internet. Some of the avatar artwork associated with certain classes and races that users can play is directly derived from the World of Warcraft Trading Card Game, while other images are lifted directly from the profiles of Deviant Art users, in many cases without any credit.

Image found on Tumblr regarding the Tweeria image controversy.

The buzz about the in-game images began on Twitter after it garnered some interest from the folks over at The Verge. Several readers had commented about the game’s copyright infringement, while a few users on Twitter openly tweeted about the fact that Tweeria contained artwork that had been previously seen in the WoW Trading Card Game. The news soon spread to Tumblr, where bloggers posted screenshots of one DeviantArt user who went around messaging others and asking if they were aware that Tweeria had been using their artwork. “Thank you for your information, I didn’t authorise any sale except on deviantart. I’m trying to contact tweeria now,” wrote one user. Wrote another, “I certainly did not give any permission resell [sic] my work. And what’s worse, a page full of stolen pictures.”

The fact that Tweeria was taking images had been discovered a few days earlier. Michael Sacco, a creative developer for the WoW Trading Card Game from Cryptozoic entertainment, discovered about a week ago that official art from the game was actually being used in Tweeria. “I loaded up the site and went to choose a character and saw that the majority of player class portraits were from WoW TCG cards,” he said in an e-mail to Ars. The lifted artwork included a photo of a female elf warrior, used originally as artwork for a Night Elf Warrior in the WoW Trading Card Game, as well as a human female mage, which looks exactly like the female Mage character used for the Netherwind Presence card.

“I alerted the Tweeria twitter [account] the same day and they responded that Blizzard’s copyright agreement left them in the clear because it was a ‘personal, non-commercial project,’” continued Sacco. “Given that we license through Blizzard, any copyright disputes have to go through them, and Tweeria knows it.”

The developers at Tweeria referred back to Blizzard’s copyright and trademark policy for its use of WoW’s images, pointing to the text that says the company grants them a “license to use and display, for home, noncommercial and personal use only, one copy of any material and/or software that you may download from this site.” Despite the "one copy" language, Tweeria developers apparently argued that this policy allowed them to reuse images in their own game.

Other lifted artwork can be found in avatars like Tweeria’s female Human Warrior, which a Google Image Search linked back to DeviantArt user LeeJJ, whose signature has also been cropped out of the image used in the game. Another reverse search for some of the artwork featured on Tweeria’s page also linked back to several other Deviant Art accounts, like this picture of an elf warrior assassin, originally drawn by user HeroDees.

Enlarge/ It's because it's being used on Tweeria's site as an avatar for the elf assassin.

Tweeria also appears to be flouting DeviantArt's copyright policy, which states that users, “may not reproduce, distribute, publicly display or perform, or prepare derivative works based on any of the Content including any such works without the express, written consent of deviantART or the appropriate owner of copyright in such works.” On its actual copyright policy page, DeviantArt also notes that copyright infringement includes “placing a photograph or creative work online without proper permission” and “adapting a creative work of one medium to another” or “modifying or editing a creative work without proper permission.”

How did Tweeria end up using so many images? Its parent company, Tweenk, certainly didn't contact the artists whose images it used for its game, as exhibited by the screenshot above, but some of the uses may have been unintentional. The game developers accept user submitted photos, which may or may not have contributed to the rampant copyright infringements.

A few days ago, the developers at Tweeria posted a not-actually-that-apologetic blog post, claiming that the issues occurred because Tweeria is a “small, private, non-commercial and mostly experiment project of twitter-based RPG… we did not expect the popularity that we experience now.” The statement added that the developers “do not want to violate copyright and we greatly respect any kind of art”—but it offered no plans to remove images unless artists contacted Tweeria first and asked to have their imagery removed.

Neither Blizzard nor the DeviantArt users involved responded to Ars by publication time. Their images still remain a part of the game experience and there's a “Based on World of Warcraft image files and texts” disclaimer stamped on the bottom of the Tweeria website. However, the site doesn't appear to include a long list of Deviant Art users who had their work included in the web-based game without their knowledge, and Tweenk’s “e-mail us if you happen to have a problem” approach doesn't seem like it offers much legal—or moral—ground to stand on.

Tweenk claims that it will work closely with an art community to create a "gaming and social platform both for players and artists. But the fact remains that the company still hasn't admitted that using images lifted from others without permission is a problem, even if it's not making a profit.

Update, December 27, 2012 10:00 California time:

Ars received an e-mail statement from Alex Shteinikov at Twee Game stating the following:

“Up to this moment I have already deleted a plenty pieces of unauthorized art and will continue to do so. On the other hand I've got some permissions from authors and feel that people generally want to contribute their works into the project…It takes much time to check all the license limitations for each artwork. As the result and unfortunately for gamers, I've closed the option for artworks uploading and got massive delay in approval of small items.”

He went on to write: “Tweeria can't move forward to bigger project without cleaning all of those art licensing issues. I must have tighter copyright control. All these tasks are already in my schedule.”

I believe the lack of attribution is a problem. However, the "Elf Assassin" example in the article does have a link to the "artwork source" right alongside the image. Does that actually lead back to the original artist's page?

First, if you claim that Tweeria are officially using deviantART pictures, why not show screenshots of that, instead of stuff even you admit could be "user-submitted content"? Guys, The Verge or Engadget can say what they like, but I expect a writer for Ars Technica to FIND OUT if it's user-submitted, instead of this "may or may not" crud.

If it is, then "we didn't expect it to get so huge" makes perfect sense since it relates directly to the non-existence of policing mechanisms. (Even if it is rather short-sighted of them - I'd argue that every site with user-submitted content, no matter how small, requires at the very least a "report this [thing]" link.)

(If I interpret that screenshot correctly, that seems to have been submitted by TheEucharis, who seems to have renamed themselves [their new handle is easy enough to find via a simple Google search]. Perhaps you should get them to comment.)

Second, that's quite some selective quoting. Their blog also says:

Quote:

1. We stopped accepting users’ artworks and we will not accept them until we introduce a new way to verify the authorship of the artworks.

2. If you are an author of the artwork and you did not give a permission to use your picture, we will remove it from our website on demand. Also, let us know if you do not mind using it in the game.

3. There will be a new moderation system in the next release this month, including verification of source references.

4. We are going to work closely with an art community. Maybe together we can create a nice gaming and social platform both for players and artists.

It'd be nice to mention that they are trying to do something about the user-submitted content problem.

Third, I would think the WoW issue is more down to a misunderstanding of the policy in question, rather than willful copyright infringement. "Never attribute to malice" and all that.

First, if you claim that Tweeria are officially using deviantART pictures, why not show screenshots of that, instead of stuff even you admit could be "user-submitted content"? Guys, The Verge or Engadget can say what they like, but I expect a writer for Ars Technica to FIND OUT if it's user-submitted, instead of this "may or may not" crud.

It's one thing if a player takes an image they find online and make it their avatar. In this case, the images (user-submitted or otherwise) are being presented as content of the game itself.

Quote:

It'd be nice to mention that they are trying to do something about the user-submitted content problem.

Except they're not. They aren't doing a damn thing about all the stolen content already in their game, instead leaving it up to artists (Who may have no idea their work has been plagiarized) to contact them. If they had any sense, they'd remove all 'player-submitted' content and then turn off the ability until they can implement it in a non-retarded way.

Quote:

Third, I would think the WoW issue is more down to a misunderstanding of the policy in question, rather than willful copyright infringement. "Never attribute to malice" and all that.

First, if you claim that Tweeria are officially using deviantART pictures, why not show screenshots of that, instead of stuff even you admit could be "user-submitted content"? Guys, The Verge or Engadget can say what they like, but I expect a writer for Ars Technica to FIND OUT if it's user-submitted, instead of this "may or may not" crud.

If it is, then "we didn't expect it to get so huge" makes perfect sense since it relates directly to the non-existence of policing mechanisms. (Even if it is rather short-sighted of them - I'd argue that every site with user-submitted content, no matter how small, requires at the very least a "report this [thing]" link.)

(If I interpret that screenshot correctly, that seems to have been submitted by TheEucharis, who seems to have renamed themselves [their new handle is easy enough to find via a simple Google search]. Perhaps you should get them to comment.)

Second, that's quite some selective quoting. Their blog also says:

Quote:

1. We stopped accepting users’ artworks and we will not accept them until we introduce a new way to verify the authorship of the artworks.

2. If you are an author of the artwork and you did not give a permission to use your picture, we will remove it from our website on demand. Also, let us know if you do not mind using it in the game.

3. There will be a new moderation system in the next release this month, including verification of source references.

4. We are going to work closely with an art community. Maybe together we can create a nice gaming and social platform both for players and artists.

It'd be nice to mention that they are trying to do something about the user-submitted content problem.

Third, I would think the WoW issue is more down to a misunderstanding of the policy in question, rather than willful copyright infringement. "Never attribute to malice" and all that.

Even then they're still at fault for being so reckless for accepting everything based on a persons word. Even then I have a feeling they damn well knew they were stealing peoples work. I mean seriously cheap as stock photos are these days they should have just paid for the art they needed. It would not surprise me if the script they're using is a clone from a non English game site. They're out there and they are very easy to get your hands on if you know what you're looking for. A lot of them are the original script completely nulled or a clone that is almost or completely identical.They are very easy to install and modify to a persons liking and you don't need much tech know how to do it.

They should offer the artist a percentage of sales for all money earned on their artwork. Copyright abuse for profit is complete bullshit and unacceptable and I have zero respect for those who do it.

So they're selling these images? There goes their "non-commercial" claim immediately.

I am unsure of the legislation, but does the DMCA give the artists involved the ability to issue a take-down notice? Could be a bit embarrassing if Twitter had to block the whole application for a while, and may make the developers take the issue a little more seriously.

The people running the program should really be working very hard right now to cover their butts, before they get sued out of their houses. As things stand, it sounds like they don't really understand their liability, given that they are clearly attempting to use these images as part of their business model.

It's one thing if a player takes an image they find online and make it their avatar. In this case, the images (user-submitted or otherwise) are being presented as content of the game itself.

"Content" here meaning "stuff on a clearly marked 'artwork' tab". It doesn't seem to be different than, say, stealing a piece of artwork on dA and putting up a print option, except for the aforementioned lack of controls.

Quote:

Quote:

It'd be nice to mention that they are trying to do something about the user-submitted content problem.

Except they're not. They aren't doing a damn thing about all the stolen content already in their game, instead leaving it up to artists (Who may have no idea their work has been plagiarized) to contact them. If they had any sense, they'd remove all 'player-submitted' content and then turn off the ability until they can implement it in a non-retarded way.

I'd agree with that - they should probably start afresh 'if they had any sense'. That said, the fact that they say they are working on controls (even if you are suspicious about their motives) should have been mentioned in the article.

Quote:

Just because it's blatant stupidity doesn't excuse it.

I wouldn''t know about your morals (I would think someone being stupid is a lot less severe than someone doing something willfully), but legally intent is important, and 'innocent infringement' can lead to reduced damages if this ever finds a courtroom.

As someone actually starting a game I am struggling with this as well.

Of course I will send an e-mail but there is no much I can do, I'm absolutely useless for drawing or design, I know what I want but cannot put it on paper (or screen); and honestly, is hard to find someone who wants to join this kind of adventure and whom you can trust :S

I will continue using images from other people but the credit will be for them and I'll make sure to send an e-mail or try to tell them.

P.S. The thing is, there are so many images that give you some amazing ideas... you should be able to use them if is free and you give the credit to the real author

So, the incredible labor and discipline in learning art as a craft means... what, to you, exactly? 'you should be able to use them if you give credit' - means you value art absolutely not at all. Try that excuse in the grocery store. 'Oh, but I need these vegetables, don't worry I'll give you credit when I eat them.' Try walking out of an electronics store without paying for a TV - 'oh, but I won't use it commercially, I'll give credit'.

What about a car? 'Oh but I'm not earning any money by driving this car, I think you should give it to me for free. I'll just take it - I'll even be nice and tell other people where I stole it from!"

I really, truly hope you understand how ridiculous, short-sighted, anti-art you sound. 'I'm not willing to learn how to do it myself, so I'll just steal it, that's okay, isn't it?', isn't an excuse that works in the real world.

Even then they're still at fault for being so reckless for accepting everything based on a persons word.

Oh, yeah, I completely agree. I'm just saying that accusing them of lifting deviantART art directly (as the article implies) and accusing them of being stupid with user-submitted content are two completely different things.

Also, it seems that it only became popular recently, so the idea that they only discovered the issue recently certainly seems at the very least plausible. I'm not saying that they weren't at least complacent - I wouldn't know - but it seems possible to me.

Quote:

Even then I have a feeling they damn well knew they were stealing peoples work. I mean seriously cheap as stock photos are these days they should have just paid for the art they needed.

Or perhaps even hiring an artist from deviantART.

I'm not ultimately saying whether or not they "damn well knew" anything - I don't know that. I'm just concerned about the selective investigation and omission of information in this article.

On the one hand, they clearly went over the line. On the other hand, I'd really like it if a lot more people put their art in the public domain (creative commons). If you're not intending to sell it for money, why cling to the rights on it? More people will see and enjoy your art if it can be re-used / re-purposed / mashed up in other people's work.

deviantART is home to many who use it as a platform to express themselves, to share with and follow their fellow artists' work, to collaborate, and to hone their craft.

It's understandable if they don't want to subject their work, which can be personal in nature, to the brutal internet. If I painted a picture of a scene that meant a lot to me, I definitely wouldn't want anyone to re-use, re-purpose or mash it up into someone else's RPG fantasy.

What an artist hopes to achieve from their work doesn't always include worldly fame and a truck load of cash.

What about a car? 'Oh but I'm not earning any money by driving this car, I think you should give it to me for free. I'll just take it - I'll even be nice and tell other people where I stole it from!"

Except, you know, it would have to be a copy of a car. "Stealing" art not from a museum but from the internet and even being nice enough to attribute it to the owner would be more like firing up your super cool 3D printing and printing a copy of a car, brand badges and all. Actually that doesn't quite work either, because no one's going to give a rats arse that a company didn't bleed you dry (or they'll congratulate you), whereas people may care when an individual artist fails to get a token contribution. But it's closer.

Some further investigation seems to suggest that the artwork you can "buy" is solely in-game cash, and I can't seem to find anything that would allow me to use real-world money in the game (although perhaps I'm not looking hard enough). So, they aren't actually "selling" other people's artwork (another thing that would have been nice to have read in the article).

Just to quickly add, I don't know if this was just added or whatever (anyone read the help section before the blog post went up?), but the help section reads:

Quote:

3) When creating items, artworks and spells, you are allowed to use only the images created by you or by a person who gave you permission to use his/her creation.

4) You must provide a reference to a source of a picture if it is required by its author.

5) Violating the terms of using images belonging to other people is prohibited even if you provide a reference to their source.

Given that, I think it would be better to be proactive in this case and, if they can't confirm the veracity of current artwork up there, just clean house.

Postulator wrote:

So they're selling these images? There goes their "non-commercial" claim immediately.

What about a car? 'Oh but I'm not earning any money by driving this car, I think you should give it to me for free. I'll just take it - I'll even be nice and tell other people where I stole it from!"

Except, you know, it would have to be a copy of a car. "Stealing" art not from a museum but from the internet and even being nice enough to attribute it to the owner would be more like firing up your super cool 3D printing and printing a copy of a car, brand badges and all. Actually that doesn't quite work either, because no one's going to give a rats arse that a company didn't bleed you dry (or they'll congratulate you), whereas people may care when an individual artist fails to get a token contribution. But it's closer.

This idea that people are entitled to the labor of artists, that all artists should slave selflessly to provide the world with art for no more recompense than a pat on the back and a 'good job', is both tremendously condescending and enormously selfish. Do you think that artists don't deserve to make a living? Do you think food and rent somehow magically provide themselves to a person, just because they are a creator?

Are you really being serious, or are you actually just trolling at this point?

gulthaw wrote: As someone actually starting a game I am struggling with this as well.

Of course I will send an e-mail but there is no much I can do, I'm absolutely useless for drawing or design, I know what I want but cannot put it on paper (or screen); and honestly, is hard to find someone who wants to join this kind of adventure and whom you can trust :S

I will continue using images from other people but the credit will be for them and I'll make sure to send an e-mail or try to tell them.

P.S. The thing is, there are so many images that give you some amazing ideas... you should be able to use them if is free and you give the credit to the real author

So you are saying that the fact that you have not artistic ability allows you to steal from those that do.

As someone actually starting a game I am struggling with this as well.

Of course I will send an e-mail but there is no much I can do, I'm absolutely useless for drawing or design, I know what I want but cannot put it on paper (or screen); and honestly, is hard to find someone who wants to join this kind of adventure and whom you can trust :S

I will continue using images from other people but the credit will be for them and I'll make sure to send an e-mail or try to tell them.

P.S. The thing is, there are so many images that give you some amazing ideas... you should be able to use them if is free and you give the credit to the real author

I know a fantastic artist. What I'm going to do is steal your code, put his artwork in it and make millions of dollars.

But don't worry, I'll put your email address in a file somewhere.

EDIT: why not use your google skills to find images you're allowed to use? Yes, some artists do license appropriately.

One of my best friends is a struggling fantasy artist (mid-30s, not a teenager like you), two kids wife and lots of debt. And his dad died just before Christmas.

What about a car? 'Oh but I'm not earning any money by driving this car, I think you should give it to me for free. I'll just take it - I'll even be nice and tell other people where I stole it from!"

Except, you know, it would have to be a copy of a car. "Stealing" art not from a museum but from the internet and even being nice enough to attribute it to the owner would be more like firing up your super cool 3D printing and printing a copy of a car, brand badges and all. Actually that doesn't quite work either, because no one's going to give a rats arse that a company didn't bleed you dry (or they'll congratulate you), whereas people may care when an individual artist fails to get a token contribution. But it's closer.

This idea that people are entitled to the labor of artists, that all artists should slave selflessly to provide the world with art for no more recompense than a pat on the back and a 'good job', is both tremendously condescending and enormously selfish. Do you think that artists don't deserve to make a living? Do you think food and rent somehow magically provide themselves to a person, just because they are a creator?

Are you really being serious, or are you actually just trolling at this point?

Are you serious in your "using art from the internet is like stealing someones car"? Come on now, that doesn't even make sense. If you're going to use a broken real life analogy, at least try to aim for sensible, OK? And somehow that makes me a troll, yea, makes sense..

Minor troll because I'm a troll now anyway: "deserving" is a badly-defined concept defined entirely subjectively, so you can't argue with it.

This indeed looks bad, but some of the comments here make me wonder if the copyright maximalists haven't been roaming a little too widely in their lobbying recently. Let me take a similar situation:

I have been playing a certain mod for Civ 4 recently. This mod is quite amazing - it completely changes the game to a new experience, and I (and many others) have played this mod to death. The coding skills of whoever was involved are impressive, but they have been...borrowing...artwork from here and there. The music is not exactly best sellers, but I have heard it somewhere. The leader images are from other (out of print, if matters) games, and I think some of the icons are as well.

All of this is secondary to the game. One could have used the music that comes with the base Civ4 game, along with the leader images provided, but using the artwork they are does provide a better experience. The staff behind the mod have put in countless hours to make something that they give away for free on the Internet, and they have seasoned it with a sprinkling of artwork that they have no rights to. If anyone complains (DMCA) they can remove it. Leaving the legalities aside for a moment (IP law in the US went beyond the insane many moons ago, and I'm glad that I don't have to care about it) - do you all think that it is deeply immoral to do what they have done?

What's the difference between illegally copying stuff and stealing stuff now again? I thought we settled on the agreement that copyright infringement never equals theft. No matter how obviously unlawful the act is.

What's the difference between illegally copying stuff and stealing stuff now again? I thought we settled on the agreement that copyright infringement never equals theft. No matter how obviously unlawful the act is.

What's the difference between illegally copying stuff and stealing stuff now again? I thought we settled on the agreement that copyright infringement never equals theft. No matter how obviously unlawful the act is.

One makes you a douchebag and the other makes you a criminal.

So, because copyright infringement is a criminal offence your response indicates that theft isn't a criminal offence. That's a pretty odd definition. Can we please agree that copyright infringement is copyright infringement and theft is theft and they are not the same thing?

The only reason to call it theft is if you are RIAA or MPAA or some such organisation.

What's the difference between illegally copying stuff and stealing stuff now again? I thought we settled on the agreement that copyright infringement never equals theft. No matter how obviously unlawful the act is.

One makes you a douchebag and the other makes you a criminal.

So, because copyright infringement is a criminal offence your response indicates that theft isn't a criminal offence. That's a pretty odd definition. Can we please agree that copyright infringement is copyright infringement and theft is theft and they are not the same thing?

The only reason to call it theft is if you are RIAA or MPAA or some such organisation.

Going out on limb here: statistically speaking, one is more likely to make you a criminal than the other. Just ask the RIAA and MPAA what their batting average is (hanging preposition, sorry. EDIT: apparently it's okay these days :-).

What's the difference between illegally copying stuff and stealing stuff now again? I thought we settled on the agreement that copyright infringement never equals theft. No matter how obviously unlawful the act is.

One makes you a douchebag and the other makes you a criminal.

So, because copyright infringement is a criminal offence your response indicates that theft isn't a criminal offence. That's a pretty odd definition. Can we please agree that copyright infringement is copyright infringement and theft is theft and they are not the same thing?

The only reason to call it theft is if you are RIAA or MPAA or some such organisation.

Going out on limb here: statistically speaking, one is more likely to make you a criminal than the other. Just ask the RIAA and MPAA what their batting average is (hanging preposition, sorry. EDIT: apparently it's okay these days :-).

What's the difference between illegally copying stuff and stealing stuff now again? I thought we settled on the agreement that copyright infringement never equals theft. No matter how obviously unlawful the act is.

One makes you a douchebag and the other makes you a criminal.

So, because copyright infringement is a criminal offence your response indicates that theft isn't a criminal offence. That's a pretty odd definition. Can we please agree that copyright infringement is copyright infringement and theft is theft and they are not the same thing?

The only reason to call it theft is if you are RIAA or MPAA or some such organisation.

Going out on limb here: statistically speaking, one is more likely to make you a criminal than the other. Just ask the RIAA and MPAA what their batting average is (hanging preposition, sorry. EDIT: apparently it's okay these days :-).

On the one hand, they clearly went over the line. On the other hand, I'd really like it if a lot more people put their art in the public domain (creative commons). If you're not intending to sell it for money, why cling to the rights on it? More people will see and enjoy your art if it can be re-used / re-purposed / mashed up in other people's work.

Wierd you are getting marked down, when its something like Google scanning peoples books or scanning their private email and network, usually people on here are in favour of it?

A lot of iOS games have done the same thing. I got one of the top downloading space games last summer, and all the tech images were Starcraft, Eve and Star Trek pictures. I saw the Enterprise, and just about every Battleship class hull from Eve. I tried to report this to Apple, but it was so hard to find a way to comment that I just put it in my review for the app.

For all of you venting righteous indignation about the stolen artwork, do you have any pirated MP3s or movies on your machine? The fact that RIAA lawyers make patent trolls look saintly is completely beside the point. The attitude that "little guy" artists deserve to be paid while successful ones do not is really saying "You artists don't have any right to charge money for your work... but you little guys should feel grateful to receive my charity once in a while."

Some of posters of upright character and strong ethical integrity seem to be fixated on material goods or wealth as the only targets of theft. Expertise and labor have value. Experts and laborers are paid for their efforts; the fruits of their efforts have value.

If there was no value in this work, you wouldn't want to use it. You would leave it out of your project or do it yourself. If you recognize the value of the art of others as being better for your project than your own stick figures, you are inherently recognizing the value of that art as greater than that of your own. Whether your project immediately benefits you financially or not is immaterial, the unpaid/unlicensed/unpermissioned labor of others is increasing the value of your project.

Wanting to increase the value of your project is a good thing. Recognize that the expertise and labor of others is a path to that, and come to a mutually beneficial arrangement with the content creators. Hire them, work out exclusive arrangements, advance their career in art as you advance yours in game (or whatever your project is) creation.

I'm confused by people who don't think that artists being able to contact them to remove copyrighted art not being enough. How else does the system work? You expect them to magically know which user submitted images are copyrighted elsewhere? This is EXACTLY what the DMCA provides for, this is always how copyright infringement and takedowns have worked. Besides which, you can't make a better system since the people using the art got it from users and genuinely DO NOT KNOW where it came from beyond that. Its actually kind of amusing, people sound like the MPAA with their "OMG THEY SHOULD KNOW AND TAKE IT DOWN EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN KNOW" crap. You expect them to write a crawler for deviant art and check every image against that and every other online art site? No, this is unreasonable. You expect them to remove ALL the art from their game without knowing where it came from? No, this is unreasonable. Artists will have to take note and report it. Its copyright people, this is how it works.

First, if you claim that Tweeria are officially using deviantART pictures, why not show screenshots of that, instead of stuff even you admit could be "user-submitted content"? Guys, The Verge or Engadget can say what they like, but I expect a writer for Ars Technica to FIND OUT if it's user-submitted, instead of this "may or may not" crud.

It's one thing if a player takes an image they find online and make it their avatar. In this case, the images (user-submitted or otherwise) are being presented as content of the game itself.

Quote:

It'd be nice to mention that they are trying to do something about the user-submitted content problem.

Except they're not. They aren't doing a damn thing about all the stolen content already in their game, instead leaving it up to artists (Who may have no idea their work has been plagiarized) to contact them. If they had any sense, they'd remove all 'player-submitted' content and then turn off the ability until they can implement it in a non-retarded way.

Quote:

Third, I would think the WoW issue is more down to a misunderstanding of the policy in question, rather than willful copyright infringement. "Never attribute to malice" and all that.

Just because it's blatant stupidity doesn't excuse it.

Sounds to me a lot like the way the DMCA works for musicians trying to get their work removed from the various P2P sites making a killing off of running ads over the pirated content. Of course, those sites are just giving the music away and still giving credit to musicians, but not bothering to share a cent of those ad dollars with artists.

It's the same way YouTube got popular, so maybe they're just following what works: screw creators over until their site is popular enough to become legitimate. /rant

You expect them to write a crawler for deviant art and check every image against that and every other online art site? No, this is unreasonable. You expect them to remove ALL the art from their game without knowing where it came from? No, this is unreasonable. Artists will have to take note and report it. Its copyright people, this is how it works.

I expect them to use a service like TinEye to perform a modicum of due dilligence. If you don’t even try, then you can’t claim ignorance.

I'm confused by people who don't think that artists being able to contact them to remove copyrighted art not being enough. How else does the system work? You expect them to magically know which user submitted images are copyrighted elsewhere? This is EXACTLY what the DMCA provides for, this is always how copyright infringement and takedowns have worked. Besides which, you can't make a better system since the people using the art got it from users and genuinely DO NOT KNOW where it came from beyond that. Its actually kind of amusing, people sound like the MPAA with their "OMG THEY SHOULD KNOW AND TAKE IT DOWN EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN KNOW" crap. You expect them to write a crawler for deviant art and check every image against that and every other online art site? No, this is unreasonable. You expect them to remove ALL the art from their game without knowing where it came from? No, this is unreasonable. Artists will have to take note and report it. Its copyright people, this is how it works.

This is said in an immature manner, but that doesnt make it wrong.

Yes their actions are morally sketchy, and they probably should take more initative. But this is copyright, and this is how it has always worked. It sucks, but such is the world we live in.

I don't think the game is actually selling it. They said it's a free game (not free-to-play). It's probably just in-game currency. That being said Deviant Art's users clearly are retaining all rights to use - this game should not be using their images without their express permission. Another commenter said something about Creative Commons. Let's be clear: these are not under that license. However, why they don't use images that are under the non-commercial use license is beyond me. They're playing ignorant because they have no reason to care right now. Wait till a lawyer contacts them - they'll wise up quick!

They should send a DMCA like they legally are supposed to. I am not sure how exactly this is news, I mean just look at pretty much anywhere online and you can see people using other people's copyright. It isn't even like they are making money on the content like thepiratebay and others.

For all of you venting righteous indignation about the stolen artwork, do you have any pirated MP3s or movies on your machine? The fact that RIAA lawyers make patent trolls look saintly is completely beside the point. The attitude that "little guy" artists deserve to be paid while successful ones do not is really saying "You artists don't have any right to charge money for your work... but you little guys should feel grateful to receive my charity once in a while."

There's a big difference -- both practically and ethically -- between downloading or ripping something and then keeping it entirely to yourself, and doing the same then using it in your widely-available commercial (or not) project and presenting it as your own.